Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Re:Re: Fluxx Newsletter Post? (TheLoneGoldfish)

  • FromPat <xenophule@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 17 Jan 2007 18:39:44 -0800
Yeah, I would have to agree here with the non-instant position only because I use Fluxx as a social tool. That is, when I go hang with friends at coffee shops or such, we play as we BS about our day. It's a good distraction if you run out of subject matter at the moment and still keeps you in conversation. Putting an instant in there would take the focus away and no longer make it a relaxing game.

Just my two cents.


On 1/17/07, Tucker <jazzfish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've heard some hardcore Fluxxorz say that Counterspell (and other
> Instants) actually break the game, and they vehemently defend their
> positions.

Yeah, that'd be me. From a rant I wrote, um, longer ago than I'd care to

Fluxx is a great game as it is.  Four easy-to-remember types of cards and
extremely simple rules.  So why do people keep wanting to add instants (or
"Instant Actions" or "Fast Effects") to the game?

I hate the idea of fast effects.  There's already so much uncertainty in
the game that you should be able to take a deep breath and feel like
you're in control on your turn.  Having people counter or steal (or
whatever) cards that you're playing is obnoxious and overly complex.  In
addition, when it's not your turn you should have to watch in horror as
your "perfect" victory plan gets wiped out.

With Fluxx it's possible to get some people together who've never played
before, deal them each three cards, and say "Draw one and play one" and
the game will go from there.  The only element of the game that might
require any explanation is the concept of "Keeper."  Instants not only
violate the "Play X" rules, they can easily confuse new players.

Regret, by definition, comes too late;
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.
--John M. Ford, "Against Entropy"

Fluxx mailing list